About your Search

20130201
20130228
Search Results 0 to 8 of about 9 (some duplicates have been removed)
and that of former secretary of state hillary clinton. >> they insisted that the tunisia authorities did not have the evidence to keep him in custody. >> tunisias did not have a basis in their law to hold him. >> so they released him? >> they did. >> where is he? >> still in tunisia. >> it doesn't sound like a good system to work with partners. >> they work the way we do. >> f.b.i. interviewed him for two hours in december after weeks of delay and following the personal intervention of the republican senator lindsey graham. he seemed to minimize the suspect's release. claiming the u.s. case was weak. >> we didn't have anything on him either or we would have made point to tunisias to turn him over to us. >> two weeks earlier in the benghazi hearing, secretary clinton said she spoke with mueller about whether the government's case could be made public. >> director mueller and i spoke about this at some length. there was not an ability for evidence to be presented yet that was cape to believe be presented in open court. >> clinton said the tunisians promised to keep tabs on him. >> we have been assu
in senate. the other is the suspect in the benghazi attack held in tunisia. thigh shared information and intelligence on what we had. the united states government try repeatedly to get access and interviewed him for three hours. brennan testified under oath that the united states didn't have anything on him. brennan's chents weren't true. republicans understand they weren't true. they couldn't be true because we passed information to the allied governments in order to help us try to prosecute. so brennan has to reconcile the comments. he has been asked in a letter by rubio to clarify them. he hasn't yet. they will push him to do so. >> bret: is this standoff over hagel increase the chances that more information comes out? or does this get as the president says, blown away by charges that this is politically motivated? and republicans are just looking for things to grab on to? >> i don't think the hague hague standoff makes any difference. >> bret: a lot of it is based on the benghazi -- >> i understand. but i'm saying the standoff over hagel is more related to request for information
throughout in the world and not all, obviously are benghazi or tripoli or tunisia. the reality is that in most countries, in the world, we can rely on the host country to provide security. they're there. they're willing to do it. they do a good job. there are some of these embassies in some of these more volatile countries that are of concern. and those were the nineteen that we're designated by the state department as ones we had to look at more closely and develop a better approach to providing security. because there part of the problem is the host countries are not very good at providing that kind of security. >> is there a -- it seems this is so much of a distance in time challenge that when it happens, how quickly can we respond? how far away are we? is there a almost like a playbook for the ambassadors for the people in those facilities that here's the steps to follow. jump on them immediately if it dpunlt click we go this or that? >> the best playbook the general responded this as well. the best playbook is an ambassador who says, we have got serious security problems h
concerning nuclear weapons, libya, mali, tunisia and egypt are in various states of unrest which we have no strategy. we are the most unsettled period since the end of the cold war. i have serious concerns as to the quality of senator hagel's professional judgment in the acuity of his views on critical areas of national security including security in the east asia and the middle east. his record on iraq is particularly troubling. as i alluded a moment ago in 2002 he voted to authorize the use of force against iraq. by 2006, the support for the war diminished after republican losses in the 2006 midterm elections. he wrote an opinion piece for "the washington post" under the title "leaving iraq honorable "foreforeshadowing. and president bush announced the decision to surge troops in 2007, senator hagel actively campaigned against it. he voted in february of 2007, in favor of a bill expressing opposition to the surge and in favor of measures to troops from iraq and equally bad policy. he wrote in the 2008 memoir, america our next chapter in historically show that the legislative efforts to
and for one-on-one talks concerning nuclear weapons. libya is obvious. a state ofgypt in unrest. now tunisia. we are probably in a more unsettled period since the end of the cold war and certainly i have ever seen. would you agree? >> i absolutely agree. >> meanwhile, the signal we are sending to the iranians is, don't worry. this aircraft carrier is not coming. this is really a disconnect the likes of which i have never seen before. i want to talk about the sequestration, because senator graham, senator a yacht -- ayotte travel around the country warning about the effects of sequestration. men and women of the military have said to us, how can we possibly do this, cause this uncertainty? the cancellation of the deployment of the aircraft carrier? the president of the united states said, it won't happen. during the campaign -- it won't happen. we were worried that it was going to happen. it is disgraceful to treat the men and women in the military so we all speak with such advocacy and passion on their behalf, to be subjected to this kind of day-to-day kind of uncertainty that they volunteer
or withdraw diplomatic staff in the advance of a crisis, from central america, from car whom, to tunisia, from egypt to mali and others. while d.o.d. does not have primary responsibility for the security of u.s. diplomatic facilities around the world, we do work closely with the state department and support them as requested. in the months prior to the benghazi attack, as i've said, we had received from the intelligence community almost 300 reports on possible threats to american facilities around the world. over the course of the day on september 11, general dempsey and i received a number of reports of possible threats to u.s. facilities, including those in cairo, egypt, but there were no reports of imminent threats to u.s. personnel or facilities in benghazi. my -- by our best estimate, the incident at the temporary mission facility in benghazi began at about 3:42 p.m. eastern daylight time on september 11. the embassy in tripoli was notified of the attacks almost immediately, and within 17 minutes of the initial reports, about 3:59 p.m., africom directed an unmanned, unmanned surveillance
, now with tunisia, with libya, with all these countries, and certainly with mali, and how you plan to direct the agency to deal with this devolving momentum that is taking place in northern africa. so that will be for tuesday, and at the request of senator levin, i ask for unanimous consent to add into the record a joint statement that he and i made on april 27, 2012, and, secondly, in order to have mr. brennan's answers to questions for the record by the time he returns before us in closed session, i ask members provide questions fear for the record by 5:00 p.m. tomorrow. that is friday, february 8, so we have them for you as soon as possible. hot so you can respond to them tuesday. i want to thank you and your family for being here. and i wish you well. thank you, and the hearing is adjourned. >> taking madam chairman. -- thank you madam chairman. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> now live coverage as we go to the state department with the new secretary of state john kerry will speak and hold a join
Search Results 0 to 8 of about 9 (some duplicates have been removed)